Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-12-08
16:47:31 mriedem finucannot: where does https://docs.openstack.org/python-glanceclient/latest/reference/api/glanceclient.v2.images.html say something about 0 data?
16:47:51 finucannot mriedem: https://docs.openstack.org/python-glanceclient/latest/reference/api/glanceclient.v2.images.html#glanceclient.v2.images.Controller.data
16:48:06 finucannot I trimmed the URL because I didn't want to pollute everyone's git-log
16:48:14 finucannot (more than I'd already done)
16:54:45 finucannot Ha! python-glanceclient is broken itself
16:56:21 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Move the claim_resources method to scheduler utils https://review.openstack.org/511357
16:56:21 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Change RPC for select_destinations() https://review.openstack.org/516707
16:56:22 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Change compute RPC to use alternates for resize https://review.openstack.org/526436
16:56:22 openstackgerrit Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova master: Make conductor pass and use host_lists https://review.openstack.org/511358
17:04:06 melwitt mriedem: I noticed you abandoned these https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508163 did we not want to keep them and not skip that test now that test_volume_backed_live_migration works? to guard against regression?
17:04:29 mriedem fewer double negatives please
17:05:28 melwitt sorry. like, we were using those DNM patches to test a fix for volume backed live migration
17:05:58 melwitt now that volume backed live migration is fixed, shouldn't we have removed DNM from those to unskip the test?
17:07:23 melwitt don't we want to unskip the test now that it will pass, that is
17:07:47 mriedem now that volume backed live migration is fixed....
17:07:50 mriedem it is?
17:08:09 mriedem you mean https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507202/ ?
17:08:35 melwitt yeah, I thought that fixed it. you had those DNM patches depend on it and the unskipped tests passed
17:08:46 melwitt did I miss something?
17:08:52 mriedem melwitt: i believe those tests will intermittently pass regardless of that patch
17:09:06 melwitt okay, that's what I was missing then
17:09:09 mriedem the volume-backed and iscsi live migration tests were skipped in tempest long ago due to random failures
17:09:17 mriedem that no one could sleuth because qemu
17:09:29 mriedem using UCA now might have changed that
17:09:31 melwitt I see
17:09:43 mriedem bug 1524898
17:09:44 openstack bug 1524898 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Volume based live migration aborted unexpectedly" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1524898
17:10:11 melwitt okay, I thought maybe that was related to the recent fix we had
17:10:20 mriedem even if we enable the test in tempest again,
17:10:33 mriedem tempest is branchless so it would run on stable branches and could fail there if we're using older packages that had a problem
17:10:37 mriedem hard to tell
17:10:53 mriedem i would very much like to get volume-backed live migration testing enabled in the gate though yes
17:10:54 melwitt oh, right.
17:11:08 mriedem we should probably change the global skip on the test in tempest to a config option,
17:11:11 mriedem so that we can enable the test per-branch
17:11:24 melwitt I can't recall if we skip certain tests for stable-only, or if that's even possible
17:11:36 mriedem we can configure tempest per-branch, per-job
17:11:43 mriedem we can configure tempest in our in-tree live migration scripts
17:11:46 mriedem the post_test_hook
17:12:07 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/live_migration/hooks/run_tests.sh#L33
17:12:19 mriedem with the magic of ansible
17:13:18 melwitt okay, so we'd add another option volume_backed_live_migration or such
17:13:25 mriedem so if you wanted to be cool, propose a change to tempest to add a config option for volume-backed live migration to replace that skip line, default to false for stable, and then set it to true in our live migration job post_test_hook script
17:13:44 mriedem and then be available when it melts the gate
17:14:09 melwitt can do
17:14:56 melwitt thanks
17:16:18 mriedem it is my pleasure
17:16:27 mriedem that's a weird phrase
17:18:18 mriedem dmsimard: interesting, even when it appears that we do set force_tcg mode, guestfs returns None rather than an int
17:18:19 mriedem http://logs.openstack.org/50/524750/1/check/legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-centos-7/a7f051e/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Dec_04_13_43_19_923098
17:18:21 melwitt lots of zvm:recheck spam going on
17:18:25 mriedem Failed to force guestfs TCG mode. guestfs_set_backend_settings returned: None
17:18:45 dmsimard weird
17:19:43 dmsimard mriedem: it seems like there's two set_backend_settings happening there
17:19:57 dmsimard event=trace eh=0 buf='set_backend_settings "force_tcg"' array=[]
17:20:05 dmsimard and event=trace eh=0 buf='set_backend_settings = 0' array=[] ?
17:21:21 mriedem i think one is the value being set?
17:21:32 mriedem or the return value?
17:21:41 mriedem i don't know what the array is
17:21:46 mriedem but like "add_drive = 0"
17:24:27 mriedem http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#guestfs_set_event_callback
17:33:32 mriedem ok this is where we have the eventlet switch that blows up http://logs.openstack.org/50/524750/1/check/legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-centos-7/a7f051e/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Dec_04_13_43_19_941869
17:33:39 mriedem that's right in the middle of the guestfs.launch call
17:33:48 mriedem error: cannot switch to a different thread
17:34:44 mriedem heh http://logs.openstack.org/50/524750/1/check/legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-centos-7/a7f051e/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz#_Dec_04_15_25_29_320753
17:34:54 mriedem so, i think the logging is what's maybe making it switch
17:35:13 mriedem so you enable guestfs debug to get callbacks from guestfs to log them,
17:35:19 mriedem meanwhile, guestfs is running in a thread
17:36:18 mriedem that doesn't explain why we were hanging before we enabled debug though
17:36:32 mriedem but i can push a patch to only launch in a thread if guestfs.debug is False
17:38:34 fried_rice cdent You going to be around in a couple hours? For a "warm handoff"?
17:38:41 mriedem gross
17:39:25 cdent fried_rice: yessir, I should be around, or at least nearby, make a ping and I’ll (eventually) come running
17:40:35 fried_rice cdent ack
17:40:59 fried_rice cdent Leaving a bit more of a mess than anticipated, I'm afraid. But nothing insurmountable.
17:49:26 mnaser is there anyone here who worked on glance image signature verification?
17:50:03 mnaser we have a change in puppet-nova to add the ability to configure it, but i'd like to know if its a global nova config (aka, api/etc need it) or nova-compute only
17:50:20 mnaser from my understanding of code, the option seems to be used in the glance image download code which probably only happens on computes?
17:52:09 mriedem peter-hamilton: ^
17:52:24 mriedem mnaser: dane-fichter is who i'd usually go to but haven't seem him in channel in a long time
17:52:28 alaski mriedem: in case this didn't already get answered, instance actions are not synced between a cell and the api level in v1. There are spurious records at the API level that never get used, but it would have taken a lot of effort to not write them there. Requests for instance actions are proxied to the cell and results are returned from there.
17:52:54 mnaser mriedem: ok cool, thanks for the info.. i'll research the code a tad bit more
17:53:03 mriedem alaski: hmm, i'm not sure how @wrap_instance_event in the compute service would ever work then
17:53:08 mriedem alaski: because the api creates the action record
17:53:15 mriedem and the compute tries to look it up to record events against it
17:53:24 mriedem but if the action isn't in the cell db, how are they ever found?
17:53:34 superdan mriedem: they get replayed in the cell I imagine
17:53:42 mriedem superdan: where/how?
17:53:51 superdan so they're down there, but the api never looks at them, only at the stale ones that are left by the start
17:54:04 superdan mriedem: because we replay calls into compute/api down in the cell
17:54:11 superdan which would create them there too
17:54:37 mriedem so if a compute service fails to find an action created in the api, it could just be because of a timing issue?
17:54:55 superdan no, I don't think so,
17:55:02 mriedem ok, was going to say - i find that hard to believe
17:55:07 mriedem because we'd be randomly failing all the time
17:55:09 superdan because it should still get created in the cell before you kick off anything
17:56:08 mriedem ok that doesn't seem to be happening
17:56:23 mriedem i dug through the cellsv1 code for awhile yesterday and don't see anything special about instance actions in there thoguh
17:56:27 mriedem *though, like how they are handled
17:56:28 superdan right

Earlier   Later